 2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser. Click image to enlarge |
|
Related articles on CanadianDriver
Manufacturer’s web site
|
Join CanadianDriver’s Facebook group
Follow CanadianDriver on TwitterBy Chris Chase
Find this vehicle in CanadianDriver’s Classified Ads
Photo Gallery:
Chrysler PT Cruiser, 2001-2009
I remember when I first saw the Chrysler PT Cruiser in its original Plymouth Pronto Cruizer concept vehicle form at the Ottawa auto show in the late 1990s. It was just so… different, though it wasn’t the first retro-styled new car making the rounds at the time; VW’s New Beetle went on sale around the same time.
The difference was that while the New Beetle was a reincarnation of a particular car from years past, the PT was a truly original design that didn’t attempt to imitate any particular vintage vehicle. Its nifty looks (though some consider it quite ugly) made the PT quite desirable when it was first launched, and it’s remained popular ever since.
While the PT’s outsides were unique in 2001, what was under the skin was quite familiar: the sole powerplant was a 2.4-litre four-cylinder borrowed from the Chrysler Sebring. Transmission choices were a five-speed manual or four-speed automatic.
    2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser convertible. Click image to enlarge |
In 2003, Chrysler added a 215-horsepower turbocharged version of the 2.4-litre motor to the mix to create a higher-performance version of the PT; this engine’s output would increase to 230 hp in 2006. In 2004, a “light pressure” turbo motor, good for about 180 horsepower, was added. A convertible was added in 2005, and the PT got a mild cosmetic update in 2006. Transmission choices have remained the same.
A convertible was added in spring 2004 as a 2005 model; it was discontinued after the 2008 model year.
The high-output turbo engine was dropped in 2008, and the light-pressure turbo motor left the lineup the following year.
While the PT’s base engine tends to feel underpowered at times, it’s a reasonably efficient performer, with Natural Resources Canada fuel consumption ratings of 12 L/100 km (city) and 8.5 L/100 km (highway) for older automatic-equipped models; that rating improved in 2004 to 11 L/100 km (city) and 8.1 L/100 km (highway), and manual transmission models did even better. Chrysler recommends premium fuel for turbo models, but these cars can be run on regular or mid-grade in a pinch. Whatever you do, expect a turbo model to use only a little more gas than a non-turbo version, when driven gently.
PT owners posting in PT-related online forums complain of poor fuel consumption, but one I drove a couple of years ago used a reasonable 9.5 L/100 km in highway driving, at an average of around 120 km/h.
Spending some time in PT Cruiser-related discussion forums reveals a few trouble spots with these cars. One is engine overheating, which appears to be very common. In some cases, the cause could be a malfunctioning radiator fan, but owners report overheating problems even with working fans.
Pages: 1 2 | next >> View full article on one page
|
at 5:04 am
I just can’t imagine how 8.1 litres / 100k on the highway can be considered “reasonably efficient”. And a real world number of 9.5 is really van territory.
Basically the same type of car – a Matrix or Vibe do much better.
No wonder owners complain on this front. Let’s just call atrocious, atrocious and be done with it.
Cheers,
John M.
ps – I got 5.1 on a 450km trip to Ottawa last week in a 2005 Echo. Might buy a ScanGuage fuel computer to further improve my technique.
at 8:03 am
The PT Cruiser is the ugliest car ever made. I can’t believe anyone bought it.
at 8:40 am
Buddy Boy – PT is by no means anywhere near the ugliest car ever made. Did you ever see an AMC Pacer?
at 2:39 pm
lol and AMC pacer isn’t all that pretty, but the PT cruiser is terribly bad for this era. It is definitely by far without a doubt bar none the ugliest vehicle produced in the 21st century thus far.
at 6:56 pm
Umm…have you ever seen an Aztek???
at 7:43 pm
This thing is also known as the PT Loser or a pissy Cruiser in many circles. Otherwise known as a bad purchase. Biased?!? Yes. Deserved?!? Yes.
at 11:25 pm
the Pukie Cruiser as ive allways called them.
at 3:27 pm
Not_Fooled PT Cruiser is one of the Best Cars ever Built. And by the way if it was so ugly, then why did GM copy the PT with there own version. PT is by far one of the best cars ever built.
at 12:30 pm
Love my ‘03 Cruiser….remember, as with ALL CARS, you don’t drive them from the Outside….and Inside I’ve got all the creature-comforts I need, and at a lot lower $$$ than other vehicles!!
As a ‘taller’ driver, the PT is easy to get in & out of, and for versatilitly, it’s perfect for me! (I wanted a RAV4 or CRV when I bought it, didn’t feel as comfortable, and would cost a lot more!!!)
at 5:20 pm
Love my ‘01 Cruiser, best car I ever had, and I had a few. The seats arrangement are endless. Bending the front passenger’s seat’s back flat… and completely remmovability of rear seats… Hey, my 9′kayak fit roght inside of it, door clesed. I was hoping that proposed panel PT and station wagon presented in 2002 Paris autoshow would make it… or the California Cruiser.
It had to come from GM as HHR – with flat nose.
There is nobody with these features. 2001 – 180,000km – I have hard time to find a car I would change to. It was good to read that FIAT will KEEP the PT in the line! They are building the european PT version in Austria, with either Mercedes diesel engine – or MINI Cooper’s BMW power train… Did you knew that?
Somebody said Matrix ? I barely opened doors – and walked away.
The practicality And charm; makes me smile when I am approaching it…
OK, I have to stop… Chears to all PT owners, we now what we are talking about
at 10:33 am
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I just got a 2003 2nd hand with 43,000 km on it. My wife and kid and I like the style a lot. I don’t expect or ask anyone else to like the style. In fact, if too many people like the style, it will lose any uniqueness it has.
As far as mileage, it gets about the same as the 1997 Honda Accord I used to drive. It isn’t great mileage, but it isn’t really bad, either, considering the size of the car.
I am over 6 feet and need a tall vehicle (I used to get back pains driving the Accord from leaning over sideways so I didn’t hit my head on the roof). Also, this vehicle is great for carrying luggage and GREAT for getting kids in and out of car seats in the back. And as another poster stated, the seat folding configurations (4 in total – regular, one fold, double fold, and fully removed) is superb!!
It is quiet and smooth on the highway – great for family fun and conversations while on the road. And it handles really well. (I used to drive a motorbike, so I know the fun of weaving round twisty-turny highways.) The panels (although the lights are too dark and it was a BAD idea to make them white, because it lacks contrast and is hard to see in bright light) and controls are all excellently positioned and easy to access.
I have read and asked many mechanics about the reliability of this vehicle, and as much as I am generally a supporter of Japanese cars (I lived in Japan, speak fluently, work with Japanese, and my wife is Japanese), I am pretty impressed with the seemingly good reliability of this vehicle.
The ONLY real beef I have about it (and other N.American – and Japanese model cars for that matter) is that it is NOT available with a highly fuel efficient and strong-torqued diesel engine in N.A.
So far, a great car!!!
at 2:08 am
The PT Cruiser ragtop is one of the finest vehicles I’ve ever owned!! I’ve owned hondas & Toyotas but there’s no comparison, the PT beats them all! So far my 2005 Turbo has logged over 80,000 trouble free miles, and has never had any issues ever! Also I get over 22 miles per gallon. This is also 1 of the best styled vehicles ever made! Chrysler made built this car from scratch and it’s still a winner! I LOVE MY PT!!! And so does everyone else!